Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37698273›Full record

SynthesiseLife2023

A rapid review of COVID-19's global impact on breast cancer screening participation rates and volumes from January to December 2020.

Reagan Lee, Wei Xu, Marshall Dozier, Ruth McQuillan, Evropi Theodoratou, Jonine Figueroa, UNCOVER and the International Partnership for Resilience in CancerSystems (I-PaRCS), Breast Cancer Working Group 2

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Charting Your Course: A Roadmap to Select a Review Type for Your Research Journey.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Breast cancer: Epidemiology, risk factors and screening.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Reagan LeeUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3658-4103
Wei XuUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0008-3338-4545
Marshall DozierInformation Services, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5151-1252
Ruth McQuillanUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0998-9540
Evropi TheodoratouCentre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Jonine FigueroaCentre for Global Health, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5100-623X
UNCOVER and the International Partnership for Resilience in CancerSystems (I-PaRCS), Breast Cancer Working Group 2

Funding

NCI NIH HHS Jonine Figueroa research is supported by the intramural program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

COVID-19 has strained population breast mammography screening programs that aim to diagnose and treat breast cancers earlier. As the pandemic has affected countries differently, we aimed to quantify changes in breast screening volume and uptake during the first year of COVID-19 . We systematically searched Medline, the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database, and governmental databases. Studies covering January 2020 to March 2022 were included. We extracted and analyzed data regarding study methodology, screening volume, and uptake. To assess for risk of bias, we used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool. Twenty-six cross-sectional descriptive studies (focusing on 13 countries/nations) were included out of 935 independent records. Reductions in screening volume and uptake rates were observed among eight countries. Changes in screening participation volume in five nations with national population-based screening ranged from -13 to -31%. Among two countries with limited population-based programs, the decline ranged from -61 to -41%. Within the USA, population participation volumes varied ranging from +18 to -39%, with suggestion of differences by insurance status (HMO, Medicare, and low-income programs). Almost all studies had high risk of bias due to insufficient statistical analysis and confounding factors. The extent of COVID-19-induced reduction in breast screening participation volume differed by region and data suggested potential differences by healthcare setting (e.g., national health insurance vs. private healthcare). Recovery efforts should monitor access to screening and early diagnosis to determine whether prevention services need strengthening to increase the coverage of disadvantaged groups and reduce disparities.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCOVID-19Early Detection of CancerAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMedicareUnited Statesbreast cancerepidemiologyglobal healthhumanneoplasmscreening

Identifiers

PMID37698273
PMCPMC10569787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.